People v. Britton

California Supreme Court

People v. Britton

52 P.2d 217, 4 Cal. 2d 622, 102 A.L.R. 1065, 1935 Cal. LEXIS 592

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 26, 1935

DocketCrim. 3904

StatusPublished

Cited by29 cases

This text of 52 P.2d 217 (People v. Britton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Britton, 52 P.2d 217, 4 Cal. 2d 622, 102 A.L.R. 1065, 1935 Cal. LEXIS 592 (Cal. 1935).

Pincite

Opinions

WASTE, C. J.

Upon due consideration of this cause, after transfer from the District Court of Appeal of the Second Appellate District, Division Two, we are of the view that the decision and judgment of that court correctly disposes of the question involved. As noted in the opinion of Mr. Justice pro tem, Fricke (Cal. App.) [45 Pac. (2d) 368], the identical question was decided by the District Court of Appeal of the Second Appellate District, Division One, a few months ago. We are of the view that that opinion (People v. Bruneman, 4 Cal. App. (2d) 75 [40 Pac. (2d) 891]), written by Mr. Presiding Justice Conrey, now an Associate Justice of this court, thoroughly presents the situation and determines the question. On the authority of that decision, on which the District Court of Appeal rested the present decision, we believe that further consideration by this court is unnecessary. [623]*623We therefore adopt the opinion of Mr. Justice Fricke, supra, as follows:

“Appellants were found guilty of robbery, and kidnaping for the purpose of robbery. In view of the necessity of reversing the convictions for the cause hereinafter stated, there is no occasion to decide other points involved, as they present no questions of law which are not well settled. Neither does it appear that these questions will necessarily arise upon a retrial of the cause.

“Appellants claim reversible error because when the jury retired to deliberate the court directed that the alternate juror should retire to the juryroom with the jury, and that this was error even though the court instructed such alternate juror that while she might listen to the deliberations of the jury, she should not express any opinion or participate by word or action in those deliberations.

“Subsequent to the appeal herein this identical question was decided in People v. Bruneman, 4 Cal. App. (2d) 75 [40 Pac. (2d) 891], and we agree with the conclusions therein stated, that the presence of the alternate juror in the jury-room while the jury was deliberating upon its verdict was reversible error. ’ ’

The judgments are reversed.

Shenk, J., Thompson, J., Langdon, J., and Conrey, J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WASTE, C. J.

Upon due consideration of this cause, after transfer from the District Court of Appeal of the Second Appellate District, Division Two, we are of the view that the decision and judgment of that court correctly disposes of the question involved. As noted in the opinion of Mr. Justice pro tem, Fricke (Cal. App.) [45 Pac. (2d) 368], the identical question was decided by the District Court of Appeal of the Second Appellate District, Division One, a few months ago. We are of the view that that opinion (People v. Bruneman, 4 Cal. App. (2d) 75 [40 Pac. (2d) 891]), written by Mr. Presiding Justice Conrey, now an Associate Justice of this court, thoroughly presents the situation and determines the question. On the authority of that decision, on which the District Court of Appeal rested the present decision, we believe that further consideration by this court is unnecessary. [623]*623We therefore adopt the opinion of Mr. Justice Fricke, supra, as follows:

“Appellants were found guilty of robbery, and kidnaping for the purpose of robbery. In view of the necessity of reversing the convictions for the cause hereinafter stated, there is no occasion to decide other points involved, as they present no questions of law which are not well settled. Neither does it appear that these questions will necessarily arise upon a retrial of the cause.

“Appellants claim reversible error because when the jury retired to deliberate the court directed that the alternate juror should retire to the juryroom with the jury, and that this was error even though the court instructed such alternate juror that while she might listen to the deliberations of the jury, she should not express any opinion or participate by word or action in those deliberations.

“Subsequent to the appeal herein this identical question was decided in People v. Bruneman, 4 Cal. App. (2d) 75 [40 Pac. (2d) 891], and we agree with the conclusions therein stated, that the presence of the alternate juror in the jury-room while the jury was deliberating upon its verdict was reversible error. ’ ’

The judgments are reversed.

Shenk, J., Thompson, J., Langdon, J., and Conrey, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 P.2d 217, 4 Cal. 2d 622, 102 A.L.R. 1065, 1935 Cal. LEXIS 592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-britton-cal-1935.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack